|
|
Post by stardiamond on Jul 22, 2020 11:36:39 GMT -5
When I take a picture of a cab, I want to look like the cab, not better or worse. My wife took a b&w film photography class that involved a darkroom. I had a Minolta slr that I got in 1972. I had it refurbished and then bought another one and had it refurbished. We bought a bunch of used wide angle lenses on ebay. These were high quality lenses and cheap. We took a lot of pictures. The cameras were completely manual and we had a great selection of wide angle lenses to pick from for a particular shot. We took great pictures. I bought some great film scanning software so that instead of having to look at contact sheets there were pictures to look at decide what went to the dark room. I envisioned using film, having it developed and then doing the processing digitally.
I moved on to what I have now an Olympus digital slr. Despite having manual overrides typical use is all automated. For regular outdoor pictures it's fine. For photographing cabs it sucks. The focus, lighting and color are stupid instead of smart and manual overrides don't help. It is very sensitive to background color and does a poor job of photographing light and dark objects close to each other. To get a good picture the lighting has to be perfect. I don't have a lighting set up and available lighting varies day to day and time of day. After taking pictures of cabs, I upload to my computer and then open with photoshop elements. I compare the image on the screen with the actual cab and adjust accordingly. I find many cases where the software is incapable of adjusting the picture. I imagine that more advanced software might handle it. When I am not satisfied with the result I try taking the pictures again the next day.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller 
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Jul 22, 2020 14:13:15 GMT -5
I hear ya on digital camera quality adjustments being unpredictable and difficult to master........particularly with specific subject type and lighting. Shiny/glossy subjects and color contrasting backgrounds causing the biggest headaches......at least for me.
When I decided to bite the bullet and purchase a "better than middle of the road", supposedly, than what I already owned, three major issues kept being discussed during my research. Some of which I posted here at RTH awhile back.
Outside of cost and type of use, the common denominators were.....type of lens quality, megapixel resolution rates and ease of deciphering through the auto/manual digests that are quite extensive, to a point of ridiculous......seems the more money and higher quality of the tool, the more the operator needs to go back to school to learn.....particularly with DSLR's.....not so much with point and shoot it seems.
I'm happy with my DSLR results now, having spent a ton of time just mastering the basic "attitude" of the camera (still much to learn), and a couple of better quality lenses. But there are still times when my phone camera will out perform it with much less hassle, given certain conditions when I'm in a hurry.
Like mentioned previously, "shop" tools have their usefulness and seem to be very popular with most heavy digital shooters.......I'm just glad digital has made it so much easier to shoot with speed, quantity and ease of review, save and disposal..........If it were not for that, I'd still be shooting, developing and transferring film at an enormous cost and little return on the investment....!
|
|
gemfeller
Cave Dweller
Member since June 2011
Posts: 4,059 
|
Post by gemfeller on Jul 22, 2020 15:13:04 GMT -5
I'll toss my 2 carats in on this. First, most lapidarists aren't photo bugs. I'm certainly in that category. We cut rocks first and struggle with photography second. There are exceptions to that and bless them! I envy their talents. Newer high-quality cameras are not only very expensive when auxiliary equipment (lenses, tripods, lighting doo-dads etc.) are included, but as pizzano notes, they're ridiculously complicated to master. Many manufacturers don't even bother to write comprehensive instruction manuals these days. I have an Olympus with features the "on-line-only" manual doesn't even address. Add to that complexities of lighting and the space that must be dedicated to that use, and we've got a problem right here in lapidary city. I'm technically competent enough to realize that ccd's in digital cameras differ markedly in their capacity to render color accurately unless one is able to spend mega-thousands for professional quality equipment. So what to do when your best efforts don't resemble the actual stone? I unashamedly edit until the image looks as much like the stone in hand as possible. Seems like we've been through this discussion several times recently. As far as I'm concerned, photo editing is perfectly honorable unless it's used to deceive. |
|
|
|
Post by stardiamond on Jul 22, 2020 16:11:13 GMT -5
I did photography many, many years before working on rocks. I actually consider making cabs as an extension to photography. When I carried a camera I would look for interesting patterns and then only take a picture. The pattern would be cropped and framed. I do the exact same thing with cabs. I posted some digital pictures I took of matted film prints my wife did. Of the negatives she worked on we each took about half. forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/thread/83907/rock-city |
|
|
|
Post by knave on Jul 22, 2020 16:22:42 GMT -5
I'll toss my 2 carats in on this. First, most lapidarists aren't photo bugs. I'm certainly in that category. We cut rocks first and struggle with photography second. There are exceptions to that and bless them! I envy their talents. Newer high-quality cameras are not only very expensive when auxiliary equipment (lenses, tripods, lighting doo-dads etc.) are included, but as pizzano notes, they're ridiculously complicated to master. Many manufacturers don't even bother to write comprehensive instruction manuals these days. I have an Olympus with features the "on-line-only" manual doesn't even address. Add to that complexities of lighting and the space that must be dedicated to that use, and we've got a problem right here in lapidary city. I'm technically competent enough to realize that ccd's in digital cameras differ markedly in their capacity to render color accurately unless one is able to spend mega-thousands for professional quality equipment. So what to do when your best efforts don't resemble the actual stone? I unashamedly edit until the image looks as much like the stone in hand as possible. Seems like we've been through this discussion several times recently. As far as I'm concerned, photo editing is perfectly honorable unless it's used to deceive. Well put |
|
|
|
Post by stardiamond on Jul 22, 2020 17:06:49 GMT -5
Most everything technology base will continue to get better and cheaper. The decision is at what point does it make sense for a user to upgrade. My digital camera was purchased 7 years ago. It is a 12.3 mp mirrorless. It is not state of the art. Recently, it occasionally doesn't work. I bought a new camera body of the same model because I need to always have a working camera. I recently considered buying a better camera but don't think the technology has improved enough to justify the cost and am not technical enough to make the determination from reviews.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Jul 22, 2020 17:22:28 GMT -5
"photo editing is perfectly honorable unless it's used to deceive"...........I don't necessarily disagree. However, due to the advent of digital editing tools, there tends to be more of an inclination by many users, to master the editing tools rather than the tool used to originate the photo.........maybe, as stated, due to the complexity of the equipment........but, having to spend "thousands" to achieve natural and realistic captures without the need for photo editing, well, at least not in my case.......at some expense, not nearly a thousand, purchasing the proper tool(s) for the task and spending the time required to learn how to use it/them properly, are really the only "consuming" issues.
If one is inclined to put the effort and knowledge into producing quality subjects worth photographing and one desires to display (digital) exhibits of that quality......IMO, that same energy of effort and knowledge should be transferred to the original photography as well.......without additional enhancements......  |
|
|
|
Post by knave on Jul 22, 2020 17:48:33 GMT -5
People tend to like a brighter photo. We like light.
Changing the digital settings pre-snap isn’t that much different from “pre-editing” your photo.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardiamond on Jul 22, 2020 18:01:58 GMT -5
A very small percentage of cab pictures require no adjustment to produce accuracy. The key for me is lighting. I take 3 different pictures and one is on a cab stand. With my previous set up with the cab on the stand and using natural light, I had to do some serious adjustments with still unacceptable results. A customer decided to give me a tutorial on photography. She mentioned an OTT light. I*had just purchased a large gooseneck OTT light to replace a florescent light that I had used but not for photography. The pictures were far superior and many required no photoshop.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Jul 22, 2020 18:45:03 GMT -5
I guess I should qualify and clarify my dislike of post photo editing tools, outside of what the camera provides itself..........enhancements made post original photo........not pre or during the actual photo taking..........any enhancements made/used as supplement while the taking of the original photo within the camera or external lighting sources, should be considered as part of the knowledge being applied having learned how to use the proper settings and equipment based on subject matter..........not a skilled acquired sitting with a lap-top manipulating the original photo product....
|
|
EricD
Cave Dweller
High in the Mountains
Member since November 2019
Posts: 1,142
|
Post by EricD on Jul 22, 2020 19:16:56 GMT -5
General consensus is that the picture should represent the the item or items in focus. Very well. We all agree on that. How that is done seems to be the issue here. I don't disagree with having a photo represent the subject as much as possible. So I do not disagree with the various ways of doing that. If you can, with your camera, produce an accurate image of what you are photographing, great! If you cannot, you have several options at hand. You can try to take a better photo(s). You can modify the photo. You can buy a new camera, or possibly several. Sometimes one solution is not all that it takes. You may need a darker or lighter background. You may need different lighting. You may need new equipment. /
|
|
|
|
Post by hummingbirdstones on Jul 22, 2020 20:36:51 GMT -5
I guess I should qualify and clarify my dislike of post photo editing tools, outside of what the camera provides itself..........enhancements made post original photo........not pre or during the actual photo taking..........any enhancements made/used as supplement while the taking of the original photo within the camera or external lighting sources, should be considered as part of the knowledge being applied having learned how to use the proper settings and equipment based on subject matter..........not a skilled acquired sitting with a lap-top manipulating the original photo product.... While I wish I could just snap a photo and have it come out looking exactly like the subject (like @hookedonrocks' photos) I would be a happy camper.
I just do not, no matter how I try to understand my damn camera, get it. I am a digital camera troglodyte. I don't have the time nor the years left in my life to understand it. Editing tools it is, I'm sorry to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by wendylawrencec329 on Nov 20, 2021 14:33:13 GMT -5
It's a pity, of course, that you can't show us live what your peppers should actually look like. Although you can probably try to find a suitable example on the Internet. Just find a picture with red peppers, so that the difference in colors is definitely noticeable. Thus, it will be much easier for us to understand what your problem is. Although I am not a professional photographer, but I have experience with cameras. As a child, my uncle often let me play with his camera. It was thanks to my uncle that I fell in love with photographing. At the moment I am doing macro lens photography in my free time. Although due to quarantine, free time has become much less.
|
|
Benathema
has rocks in the head
God chased me down and made sure I knew He was real June 20, 2022. I've been on a Divine Mission.
Member since November 2019
Posts: 703
|
Post by Benathema on Nov 20, 2021 16:32:50 GMT -5
Peter Piper picked a pile of purple peppers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Nov 21, 2021 5:08:41 GMT -5
Updates sometimes really suck.
My wifes phone updated her gmail app, and suddenly her inbox had been changed to primary and promotions, both empty, no emails. By trial and error comparing our respective settings I returned it to the regular inbox, and there they were.
Got to love technology.
|
|
